Jury convicts Mass. mom who withheld cancer meds

Apr 12, 2011 By DENISE LAVOIE , Associated Press
Kristen LaBrie is handcuffed in court after she was found guilty on all four counts, including attempted murder, at Lawrence Superior Court in Lawrence, Ma., Tuesday, April 12, 2011. The Massachusetts woman was found guilty of attempted murder for failing to give chemotherapy treatments to her cancer-stricken, autistic son. (AP Photo/Cheryl Senter)

(AP) -- A Massachusetts woman who withheld at-home chemotherapy medications from her autistic, cancer-stricken son was convicted of attempted murder Tuesday by jurors who dismissed her claim that she thought the side effects of the treatment could kill him.

Kristen LaBrie also was found guilty of child endangerment and assault and battery for failing to give her son, Jeremy Fraser, at least five months of cancer medications after the boy was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 2006. He died in 2009 at age 9.

LaBrie, 38, told the jury she stopped giving him the medications because she couldn't bear to see how sick the side effects made him.

Prosecutors portrayed her as a single mother seething with resentment because she had to care for Jeremy alone.

LaBrie, who appeared teary-eyed but resigned as the verdict was read, consoled her sobbing sister in the front row.

"Tell everybody I'm OK. It's going to be OK. I love you, too," LaBrie said.

As she was led away in handcuffs, she mouthed "I love you" to her family.

Jeremy's oncologist, Dr. Alison Friedmann of Massachusetts General Hospital, had testified that she told LaBrie her son's cancer had a cure rate of 85 percent to 90 percent under a two-year, five-phase treatment plan that included some hospital stays, regular visits to the hospital clinic to receive chemotherapy treatments and at-home administration of several cancer medications.

Friedmann said the boy's cancer went into after months of treatment. But in early 2008, Friedmann said she discovered that the cancer had returned in the form of leukemia and that LaBrie had not filled at least five months of prescriptions she was supposed to give him.

LaBrie, testifying in her own defense, told the jury that she followed the instructions from her son's doctors for the first four phases of treatment but stopped giving her son the medications during the final phase because she "didn't want to make him any sicker."

LaBrie said she told her son's doctor two or three times that she was afraid that "he just had had it."

"He was just not capable of getting through any more chemotherapy," LaBrie said. "I really felt that it could out-villainize the disease - the medicine could - because he was very, very fragile."

LaBrie's lawyer, Kevin James, told the jury LaBrie was depressed and overwhelmed by caring for her son, who was severely autistic, nonverbal and developmentally delayed. James said she made a "tragic mistake" in stopping her son's at-home medication, but said her actions were not criminal.

LaBrie and the boy's father, Eric Fraser, had a contentious relationship. LaBrie said she received very little help from him, even after their son was diagnosed with .

After doctors discovered LaBrie had withheld the medications, Jeremy went to live with his father for the last year of his life. Eric Fraser was killed in a motorcycle accident seven months after his son died.

Fraser's family members wept in the back row of the courtroom as the verdict was read.

Eric Fraser's brother, Andrew Fraser, later acknowledged the toll the heart-wrenching case has taken on both families.

"It's been a struggle for everybody, including the defendant," he said. "It's never a good day to have to go through something like this, but we did."

LaBrie's sister, Elizabeth O'Keefe, cried as she defended her sister to reporters after the verdict. She said she expected guilty verdicts on the child endangerment and assault charges, but was surprised jurors convicted her of attempted murder.

"It's too hard for them to know what my sister was going through at that time," O'Keefe said. "Nobody was there, just me and my close family. We loved Jeremy more than any other little boy in this whole world."

"I don't think that my sister had any intentions of hurting Jeremy - ever - and never will believe that in my life," she said.

LaBrie will be sentenced Friday morning. She faces a maximum sentence of 20 years on the attempted murder charge, 10 years on a charge of assault and battery on a disabled person, five years on assault and battery on a child causing substantial injury and 2 1/2 years on reckless endangerment of a child.

Her attorney, Kevin James, asked to delay sentencing until next week so he could write a sentencing memo and gather letters on LaBrie's behalf from her friends and family. Judge Richard Welch said he would review the letters and sentencing memo, but would not agree to schedule the hearing next week.

"Those are very serious crimes," Welch said.

Explore further: NICE to recommend 'single dose' radiotherapy during breast surgery

5 /5 (4 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Minn. parents agree to let son undergo chemo

May 26, 2009

(AP) -- The parents of a Minnesota boy who refused chemotherapy for his cancer told a judge Tuesday they now agree to the medical treatment, and the judge ruled their son can stay with them. Daniel Hauser, ...

Police look for mom, son who fled to avoid chemo

May 20, 2009

(AP) -- A courtroom clash between medicine and faith took a criminal turn, with police around the country on the lookout Wednesday for a Minnesota mother who fled with her cancer-stricken 13-year-old son ...

Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

May 15, 2009

(AP) -- A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.

No new leads on missing Minn. mother, son

May 22, 2009

(AP) -- A Minnesota father's public plea for his wife to bring home their 13-year-old son for cancer treatment went unanswered as their flight from authorities stretched into another day Friday.

Recommended for you

Cancer: Tumors absorb sugar for mobility

1 hour ago

Cancer cells are gluttons. We have long known that they monopolize large amounts of sugar. More recently, it became clear that some tumor cells are also characterized by a series of features such as mobility or unlikeliness ...

Early hormone therapy may be safe for women's hearts

11 hours ago

(HealthDay)—Healthy women at low risk of cardiovascular disease may be able to take hormone replacement therapy soon after menopause for a short time without harming their hearts, according to a new study.

Low yield for repeat colonoscopy in some patients

11 hours ago

(HealthDay)—Repeat colonoscopies within 10 years are of little benefit to patients who had no polyps found on adequate examination; however, repeat colonoscopies do benefit patients when the baseline examination was compromised, ...

Cell's recycling center implicated in division decisions

14 hours ago

Most cells do not divide unless there is enough oxygen present to support their offspring, but certain cancer cells and other cell types circumvent this rule. Researchers at The Johns Hopkins University have now identified ...

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Recovering_Human
not rated yet Apr 12, 2011
Assault and battery?
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2011
In Canada if the government wants your child to die, they will refuse treatment no matter how much you protest. I dont have enough information, however I generally side with the parents IF they are doing what They feel is in the best interest of the child, as the loss is theirs not mine and their decisions do not affect me or my rights as a parent.
GeeDoubleYa
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2011
If the boy had survived the whole course of treatment, there was still a 10 to 15 percent chance that it would not have stopped the cancer.

And if the boy had died during or after full treatment, would the oncologist have been tried and found guilty of murder? Doubtful.

This case sounds reminiscent of the Salem witch trials ... medical (instead of religious) "authority" assigned blame and rallied society for a guilty verdict. Sentencing to follow. Will Kristen LaBrie be hanged or burned at the stake? The punishment will serve as a powerful example: this is what happens to parents should they disobey doctors' orders in the State of Massachusetts.

There are no winners in this case; just witnesses to the misery. Judgment belongs only to God.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2011
I find it sad that those that would commend a woman for not looking after the best interest of an unborn child and killing that child for the simple reason as not being wanted, are the same ones who have no problem taking away a parents right to choose the best medical treatment in their opinion for that child.
IntelligentFail
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
Clearly God is testing this woman for her faith. Just compare her suffering with the suffering of Job.
Her son passed away due to a sickness that was layed upon humankind after the original sin. She did the right thing to leave it to God's judgement. God bless her.
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2011
Im not saying she did the right thing or the wrong thing. All I'm saying is that it is the parents right to determine what is right for their children, if they have the best interest at heart.
SmaryJerry
not rated yet Apr 15, 2011
Can't judge her without more information, probably the information presented at trial. If all they have is that she didn't fill the prescription that doesn't prove she was trying to kill him.
EWH
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
Having gone through over three out of four phases of treatment, the risk of death would only be shifted by a small amount, say 15% if the treatment had been completed to 20 or 25%. The specifics of the case, with preexisting conditions and severe side effects being caused by the final phase of treatment likely reduce the expected benefit of further treatment. That means that there was a 40%- 75% chance that the death would have happened anyway, and a 100% chance that the treatment would have caused the child additional suffering. Furthermore, it was the doctor's responsibility to monitor the child's treatment individually, not inflict unbearable side effects and promptly diagnose and respond to any relapse. If that isn't enough to show reasonable doubt of the mother's guilt of all the allegations, then what is?
ShotmanMaslo
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2011
Im not saying she did the right thing or the wrong thing. All I'm saying is that it is the parents right to determine what is right for their children, if they have the best interest at heart.


What? I strongly disagree, it is not the parents right. She killed him by her stupid decisions, she deserves to be punished.

Your child is not your property, and no parent has any right to refuse treatment if it endangers their child.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
If she thought that the chemo could harm him, she should have visited another doctor to consult. Arbitrarily withholding such treatment is a criminal deed.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
I followed this story a year ago when it initially broke.

The woman's child was autistic. She had been heard saying 'I wish it was over' by witnesses produced during the case. She had been notified by Child Services that withholding medication would be grounds for negligence at a minimum and she continued to delay treatment with a rather cavalier attitude. She was warned on several occasions that her actions were criminal negligence and she was finally put in shackles for it.

I have no inclination to accept her story of 'I thought the treatment would hurt him' considering she didn't develop it until after she had given a few statements on the matter and found herself in a holding cell.
skitterlad
not rated yet Apr 17, 2011
Not being religious, just well educated with genetics and have thought out our burden.


There are no winners in this case; just witnesses to the misery. Judgment belongs only to God.


and

Her son passed away due to a sickness that was layed upon humankind after the original sin. She did the right thing to leave it to God's judgement. God bless her.


The fault lies on who created DNA. Its imperfections will forever cause misery to humans until we can manipulate it in every way. Else, We are born to die and The birth of life is always condemned to death.
AkiBola
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Your child is not your property...


What about partial birth abortion? Is the child the womans property when she sucks out its brain? If a man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, is it murder of merely the loss of an abortable entity? If the state orders you to vaccinate your child, should the parent go to jail if they refuse? Should home schooling be allowed, or the child must be educated by state qualified teachers? The issue of who owns the child is not so clear in law, but I'd generally side with the parent unless there is gross negligence.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2011
In Canada if the government wants your child to die, they will refuse treatment no matter how much you protest.


Cite Proof. This sounds very untrue.

I find it sad that those that would commend a woman for not looking after the best interest of an unborn child and killing that child for the simple reason as not being wanted, are the same ones who have no problem taking away a parents right to choose the best medical treatment in their opinion for that child.


Seems more to me like an offshoot of the political opinion among those who are anti-reproductive rights, whereby all life should be saved at all costs no matter what, regardless of parental desire.

Now personally i think that this lady should be jailed for a significantly long time. She was warned several times that this was illegal and harmful to her child. If she was fed up with caring for him she could have placed him in foster care or in a group home setting, but instead she decided to kill him.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
What about partial birth abortion? Is the child the womans property when she sucks out its brain?


Partial birth abortions are banned in all civilized countries, and for a good reason.

If the state orders you to vaccinate your child, should the parent go to jail if they refuse?


Depends on the danger of not being vaccinated. That is probably not too high nowadays. If it is, then vaccination needs to be compulsory regardless of the wish of the parents.

Should home schooling be allowed, or the child must be educated by state qualified teachers?


As long as the child is taught everything in national curriculum, I dont think homeschooling should not be allowed.

The issue of who owns the child is not so clear in law, but I'd generally side with the parent unless there is gross negligence.


OK. But in this case, we have the mother of all gross negligences described in this article.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2011
Interesting that progressives who cry freedom, are the first ones to take away your rights. Just remember folks, the state cares less about you or your children. To the state, you and your children are just a resource to be used and exploited.

The phrase... If we can save just one child... is often used by progressives. The whole phrase actually to them is ... If we can save just one child, we will sacrifice 100 and still lose the one.

If I was a progressive and I was in power, I would ban rap music, MTV, most of the cartoons on TV, most TV shows and video games, and jail parents who fail to discipline their children. I would say, if we could save just one child taking away your freedom is worth it.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2011
J-N

http://community....128.aspx

Just as I may not agree with the mother refusing to give medications to their child, I may not agree with these parents either. However I am for their rights to choice what is in the best interest of theri child.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
More info on the baby....

http://www.thebla...heotomy/

Let Obamacare and the progressives run things, kindness and humanity, and self determination would be removed from health care
J-n
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2011
That story of that boy has nothing to do with the government deciding to kill the child or anything like that. From the article
But the child's family said removal of the ventilator would cause him to choke painfully to death, and asked doctors to perform a tracheotomy that they said would allow him to die more comfortably and slowly.

The hospital has said the procedure is not medically necessary and will not treat the boy's condition and refused to authorise it.


It's not about Canada saying this child must die and the parents saying no, it's about the parrents demanding a procedure, and the staff at the hospital saying that it will not help the patient.

Do you really think that kindness, humanity and compassion are things that work well within the bounds of the system we have now? The only thing that hospitals in the USA care about is Cash. If you don't have insurance, or the cash to pay them, good luck getting appropriate care.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
Interesting that progressives who cry freedom, are the first ones to take away your rights.


Yeah, I cry freedom, but personal freedom. Not freedom to kill other humans. I dont think you have any idea of the concepts of freedom and rights at all, when you advocate this horrible crime.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
Conservatives believe that a parent should have a right to kill their offspring, with the exception when it is in embryo stage, then it is magically protected, even tough its just a bunch of cells with no brain yet. But when born, who cares that your mother is insane and will force a painful death on you? It is her "freedom".

Seriously, this kind of thinking makes sense only to psychopaths!
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
Sorry JN, the parents wanted a medical treatment, the government refused to provide it, they had to go to the US to get it, the kid is now more comfortable. Good luck getting appropriate care here in the US if the government doesn't think you are worth it under Obama care. Remeber death pannels, they do exist under Obama care.

ShotmanMaslo - the psychopaths are progressives, I can list many progressive leaders that are/were psychopaths that still are heros to the progressives movements. Keep yelling that conservatives are hateful and violent. People are getting wise to to fact that truth and progressives do not mix. When progressives say something about conservatives, they are actually describing what they believe.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
Chances are right now, in every city in the USA someone is being dismissed from a hospital, not because they've been treated for their cancer, or given a lifesaving treatment, or medication that will slow the progress of their disease.. but because they do not have the ability to pay. Maybe their insurance has run out, or they've got no insurance, or they've gone bankrupt already paying for previous hospital bills.

Right here in America (the country that i truly love) REAL humans are being turned away for NEEDED medical care, not because it's an elective surgery that will not save their life, but because they do not have the Funds to pay for their treatment.

Which is worse? Being denied an optional treatment that will increase your lifespan by a few days but keep you in significant pain, or being denied a lifesaving treatment because you can't afford it?

Keep in mind that ANY procedure can be purchased in canada, the government insurance will only cover certain things.

J-n
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
Death Panels?! You actually drank the kool-aid on that one?!

You do understand that what fox news called Death Panels was actually just a provision that encouraged your doctor to talk to you about creating a living will, where you can state on paper your end of life decisions (Do not resuscitate, no blood transfusions, etc).

Never was it discussed where a group of people would decide weather you would be able to live or not, outside of what already exists when you have no relatives, are brain dead, and the hospital does not want to pay for your expenses anymore.

A free market system for healthcare will always produce winners and loosers. Do you really think that the richest nation in the world should let a significant portion of it's population go without healthcare. Who do you think covers the bills when a person with diabetes looses a foot and goes on disability because they could not afford their insulin?
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
j-n, unless you are ignorant, given limited resources and government funding, your helathcare will be subject of a cost/benefit analysis by a government bureaucrat. It will be the government that determines that a child cannot get a tracheotomy, it will be the government that determines that you cannot get heart surgery (just ask Obama) Your trust that the government will look after your personal best interest is misguided.

Free market will produce winners and loosers, however the loosers can appeal to charities, family, neighbors and even the governement for help. That said, most people will do better in a free market system.

Government will make all of us who are not among the elite loosers who have no one to appeal to. Go the England to see their nightmare health care system. In Canada how long does it take to get a MRI, new hip, heart surgery, who decides who gets a tracheotomy?
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
J-N one correction, in Canada you cannot purchase any medical procedure and the government just won't pay for it. If a doctor takes private money, they are not allowed to take government money. So either the doctor is all in, or they are all out. Those that are all out are the ones treating the elite in society, ie. high government officials, the super rich, the sports stars, etc. Private insurance only covers what the government doesn't like better rooms or better equipment. (in Canada a wealfare receipient gets lightweight casts, a poor working stiff, gets plaster casts)

Common people have no choice.

You are also repeating the lie that people are being turned away from needed health care in the USA. If you need health care, you get health care.

Criminal aliens know that and go to hospitals for colds, babies, and other treatment without paying and because of them not paying they are bankrupting hospitals while increasing the cost to Americans and legal immigrants.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2011
"Common people have no choice."

Common people have by definition more choice in mixed than all private system.
Even assuming what you said is true (which it is certainly not, at least in my country) its still better:

government alternative, private alternative and charity is better than only private alternative and charity. 3 possibilities to acquire healthcare vs. 2.

Also you cannot compare government denying to provide pointless (yes, tracheotomy to a brain dead patient is pointless) healthcare for free to private hospitals denying needed healthcare (even if not urgent) because you dont have money to pay.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2011
ShotmanMasolo, so you agree that in Canada and now with Obama care, there are death panels.

FYI, my motherinlaw died because of the Canadian health care system not wanting to do additional cancer surgery. Also in Canada I had to wait 9 months for an MRI and I only got it so fast because I knew how to manipulate the system. Go to calgary and look for a family doctor that is taking patients, there arnt any. In Canada I had to wait weeks to see a doctor. Hip surgery, heart sergery all are currently rationed in Canada, except for those in the Government, sports starts, and the super rich.

Who determines what is pointless? The child now can breath. I thought liberals and progressives were for choice. I thought liberals and progressives want to keep government hands off peoples bodies.

Government taking away rights and choice affect me. A family deciding what is in the best interest of their children, even if I disagree with their decision, does not harm me.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2011
There are no death panels, that bullshit.

"FYI, my motherinlaw died because of the Canadian health care system not wanting to do additional cancer surgery."

Why didnt she use your beloved private clinic then? If she didnt have enough money, why do you think she would have enough in your all-private system? If anything, government alternative lowers the price of private clinics, since its additional competition for them.

"Also in Canada I had to wait 9 months for an MRI and I only got it so fast because I knew how to manipulate the system."

Why didnt you use private clinic? If it was too expensive for you, why do you think waiting 9 months for government payed MRI is worse than no MRI at all, because you could not afford it?

"In Canada I had to wait weeks to see a doctor."

Was the doctor on a holiday? If not, why do you think having to wait weeks is worse than no doctor at all? Why didnt you use your beloved private clinic?
ShotmanMaslo
2.4 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2011
"Who determines what is pointless? The child now can breath."

The child was only an empty shell without brain. So why should taxpayers pay for it? Why not use private clinics for pointless treatment?

"Government taking away rights and choice affect me."

How the hell is government public health alternative affecting you? If you dont like it, dont use it, stay with private hospitals. You are against it, want it abolished, yet you use it. Hypocrisy much?

"A family deciding what is in the best interest of their children, even if I disagree with their decision, does not harm me."

Family shooting their child does not harm you or me. Should we tolerate it? I dont see any difference in principle between denying lifesaving treatment and directly killing the child.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2011
ShotmanMaslo, you have a lot of hate and anger for the truth. Typical progressive you say there is no Death Pannel but argue for one and keep giving examples of them.

My mother in law had no choice in Canada as there are no private hosipitals for normal people. Here I can go to my doctor, see a specialist within a few days, get an MRI, etc. In Canada I cant.

At least you seem to agree that Governement controlled health care takes away peoples rights.

If you cant see the difference between a parent shooting a child and a parent doing what they think is medically in the best interest of their child, you prove the point that progressives are as dumb as their answers, as radical as their views.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2011
"Typical progressive you say there is no Death Pannel but argue for one and keep giving examples of them."

You seem to not comprehend that government alternative with waiting times + private alternative is still better than only private alternative. My system (mixed healthcare) INCLUDES your system (private healthcare), government insurance is an ADDITION not replacement.

"My mother in law had no choice in Canada as there are no private hosipitals for normal people."

Dont be ridiculous. I am from former communist country, and we have enough private clinics. They are a bit expensive but when you have enough money noone is stopping you to get any treatment immidiatelly. Are you saying all-time capitalist Canada is worse? Any Canadian here to confirm?

ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2011
"Typical progressive you say there is no Death Pannel but argue for one and keep giving examples of them."

This GOP falsehood has been debunked many times - voluntary living will advices for the elderly are not "death panels", unless you cannot think straight.

http://mediamatte...08150001

Show me where have I given example of "death panel"?

"If you cant see the difference between a parent shooting a child and a parent doing what they think is medically in the best interest of their child, you prove the point that progressives are as dumb as their answers, as radical as their views."

So if I somehow think harming my child is in his best interest, I am suddenly free to do so? Thats ridiculous. Ever heard about the rights of the child? The line of thinking that the child is not a living being with full rights (right to lifesaving treatment being one of them, unless you are nazi), but only property of the parents is outright dangerous.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2011
ShotmanMaslo, you need to read the Seattle times comment section today. Death Pannel advocates, however just like progressives, they changed the name.

Progressives say Obama care has no death pannel, however it is there, they are implementing it, they are advocating it (just like you are). Why is it progressives cant speak the truth? ShotmanMaslo, Americans are getting wise to progressives lie.

One one hand you claim child rights if a parent doesn't want to do what government wants them to do, then deny childs rights if the government thinks the child life is not worth saving. Americans are getting wise of and tired of the hyporisy, hate, disrespect, and the outright lies of Progressives.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2011
One one hand you claim child rights if a parent doesn't want to do what government wants them to do, then deny childs rights if the government thinks the child life is not worth saving.


Yes, braindead patients are not worth saving, that has nothing to do with death panels, it is standard medical practice. If you want to save such patients, you are free to pay it out of your pocket, or find an insurance company that does cover it. That is how you want to do it after all, so where is the problem?

Public healthcare is supposed to work IN ADDITION to private healthcare, so all your points are moot, anyway. Three choices (public, private, charity) vs. two choices (private, charity).
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2011
It should be rather obvious, freethinking lives in a box, making his thinking anything but free.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2011
Progressives are the ones in a box.

Progresive thought,

Parents making decisions, BAAAADDDD
Insurance making decisions, EVILLLLLL
Government making decisions, Goood
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011
We dont give a damn who is making the decision - only if the decision is bad or good. And that is determined by its consequences (not intent!).
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011

You are also repeating the lie that people are being turned away from needed health care in the USA. If you need health care, you get health care.


First of all I work in healthcare, here in the united states. This isnt repeating a lie, it's speaking from real life experience.

Yes if you go to the hospital they will treat you then send you away. If you have an ongoing condition, this is not an option for you. Illegal immigrants are only a VERY VERY small proportion of all the free services hospitals are required to provide. Were those who go to the hospital for their services had another option, they'd utilize it. Unfortunately there aren't other options for those without insurance here.

In regards to death panels, can you show me where those are located in the bill? Can you explain what you mean by Death Panels? Do you mean that doctors would advise their patients on end of life decisions?

I speak from experience, it seems you are speaking from fox.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011
The least expensive way to facilitate healthy individuals, is by using preventative care, or catching illness early. This can ONLY be accomplished if people regularly see their doctors.

Preventative care cuts healthcare costs by a significant proportion.

For instance, it is MUCH cheaper to have a diabetic take insulin for 30 years than to have to amputate their foot, because of diabetic necrosis.

Unfortunately because of costs people without insurance do not see their doctors regularly, and even then cannot afford the medications that are prescribed.

The end result is that people without insurance go to the hospital for all their healthcare, which costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than a visit to your doctor. In the end the American tax payer pays for these visits, at a higher cost than what they would pay if we were to give everyone insurance.

What is your free-market solution to this problem?
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011
Free market will produce winners and loosers, however the loosers can appeal to charities, family, neighbors and even the governement for help. That said, most people will do better in a free market system.


There already are winners and loosers. Right now no one cares about or thinks about the loosers in our system.

With the proposed changes no one will be required to drop their private insurance, people will still be able to pay out of pocket for anything they want.

Never once did i insult your intelligence, it may be though as a healthcare purchaser (as opposed to provider) you may be unaware of what goes on behind the scenes, and since (from your replies) i can asume you have insurance, are not in a position to actually have experienced any of the negatives of the "free" market healthcare system we "enjoy".

You are aware that insurance companies are the ones now that decide weather they want to pay for your care or not right?!
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2011
The facts are Obama has stated he want one payer system. Obama care Will force out private insurance. Obama care has death pannel (call them what you want.)

Right now hospitals do forgive debts owed.
Right now if you need treatment, you will get it.

Yes I do have health insurance and it does costs too much. However it costs so much because of government mandated requirments I don't need, because of criminal aliens not paying for medical care, and because government does not allow me to buy insurace across state lines.
minicows
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011
This is really sad for the woman. I mean, she spent so long seeing her child suffer. I don't think she was trying to kill her son because if she was wouldn't she have just killed him the first time he got cancer or even when he was diagnosed with autism or some of that other disabilities. The child probably wanted this too because he was DEFINITELY in pain. And the mother can only watch her son suffer for so long. Imagine if your son was like this:autistic, nonverbal, developmentally delayed, and had cancer twice. Wouldn't you want to free him of that?
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
Obama care has death pannel (call them what you want.)
It's _you_ who is an active member of a death panel. By electing politicians who legislate laws which cause that thousands of people every year are forced to die only because they can't pay their treatment.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
Right now hospitals do forgive debts owed.
Right now if you need treatment, you will get it.


It MAY be that if you go to a hospital and they do treat you, they MIGHT forgive the debt if you declare bankruptcy, if that is an option for you, and the hospital is doing okay financially. If not it's just like any other debt.

Hospitals will only do enough to stabilize you and keep you from dying immediately. If you have cancer, AIDS, ALS, COPD, Diabetes, etc.. they will let you in, but if you do not have the ability to pay, you will be dismissed from treatment very quickly. This is FACT, Remember hospitals are there to make money.

What Obama wanted and what is in place now are two different things. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Income Tax, does that mean that i no longer have to pay?

Your insurance costs so much because the pool of individuals in your plan is relatively small. The larger the pool the cheaper the insurance costs. Spread the risk and the costs are lower.(econ 101)
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
Obama care has death pannel (call them what you want.)


I did ask for your definition of a death panel, as i'm really not sure what you are talking about. When Sarah Palin was talking about Death Panels she was talking about the provision that encourages Doctors to talk to their patients about end of life decisions. Where a Doctor sits down with a patient and explains how a Living Will works, and how to Talk to your family about what you want if you are unable to make end of life decisions your self because of illness, how to setup hospice care and make sure that you are comfortable in your last days of life.

These, of course, are all things that Doctors have done with their patients for many years, the only change is that now Medicare will compensate the Doctors for their time during this discussion. REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE CONVERSATION. Just as Medicare will compensate the Doctor for talking to you about smoking cessation.

What is your definition of a death panel?
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011
J-n

"When Sarah Palin was talking about Death Panels she was talking about the provision that encourages Doctors to talk to their patients about end of life decisions."

Exactly.
Seriously, I would NEVER vote for a party whose election leader lowers itself so much he/she uses so blatant strawmans and unsubstantiated fearmongering in a political discussion. It is a sign of something when they have to resort to such practices and lies to advance their agenda..
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
Parents making decisions, BAAAADDDD
Insurance making decisions, EVILLLLLL
Government making decisions, Goood


Parents making decisions that are intended to result in the death of their child. Bad.

Insurance companies, where the only thing that is a factor is making money, making decisions regarding patient care, Yes EVIL.

Government making decisions in regards to patient care, not great. (yes i agree!) Though lets look at a few things.

Government officials are subject to review by you and me. It is WE who determine not only who holds those offices but also how long they hold them (yes recalls don't happen often, but they do happen). Do you really think that if some Government Official decided that some old ladies needed to die because we did not want to pay for their care that there wouldn't be outrage? Protests? Etc?

What it sounds like you are saying is that you trust a group of folks who's only concern is Profit Margins over those we actually have some control over.